'Strong-armed tactics' won't work, Pat Washburn tells group

A recall special election is not a good idea, about 30 citizens at the mayor's monthly coffee chat Wednesday agreed, even though it may be a provision of a working democracy. A group of three individuals, unhappy with the recent vote of four town trustees on the EPIC downtown theatre project, launched an effort to recall trustees Eric Blackhurst, Wendy Koenig, Ron Norris and John Phipps last week, after their votes scuttled the project slated for the Park Theatre Mall area, over a purchase option and parking spaces (see related stories). The recall advocates were not at the coffee chat. Among those who attended, the hot topics were the recall effort, the multipurpose center planned for the Stanley Fairgrounds(MPEC), horses and theatre.

Resident Eric Waples said after the meeting, "So my quote is: If you're a horse, you get a better theatre seat."

Waples quizzed mayor Bill Pinkham, mayor pro tem Blackhurst and town administrator Frank Lancaster throughout the meeting, trying to get a read on government feelings toward equality of equines and Equity productions.

A passionate Pat Washburn, trained mediator, said a recall effort is not a dialogue and it is divisive. When you have a diversity of opinions, she said, a recall is not the way to deal with it.

Mayor Pinkham said sometimes it's best to agree to disagree. Washburn said she belives in economic development and would love to have a performing arts center here, but strong-armed tactics" won't work and we "have to do it differently."

Advertisement

Washburn expressed the concern that the conversation around a performing arts center has become "very divisive, polarized, acerbic and not the best way to have a civil dialogue."

She mentioned a group started about six years ago, called Estes Cares, begun especially to promote civil dialogues — through active listening and nonviolent communication, so residents don't have to get into polarizing positional places, when what they are seeking is common interests.

"When I heard about the recall petition, I flipped," she said. "I'm usually calm and rational., but I'm very concerned we've reached a place where (if someone is doing something we don't like), they're vilified"

As an example, she said that letters seeking residents' support for the recall indicated that you were not "with it," if you didn't agree. Washburn said she has lived here since the 1970s and has served on many boards and been an active participant in Estes Park. She expressed a willingness to work with people and find a different way to disagree.

"A recall petition is not the way to solve a disagreement," she said.

Pinkham said the issue is of concern. The recall process is open to any individual, but brings up the question of whether a small group of individuals is truly representative of the community. They may be at one end of the spectrum in terms of the way the community is looking at issues.

"There's a great deal of passion around (a) theatre," Pinkham said.

The town board members understand that a lot of people are unhappy with their decision. The mayor also suggested that there are efforts going on in terms of possibly bringing this issue forward again. Acknowledging it's "kind of a weird setup," he said that goes along with "running a municipality."

"I don't subscribe to the belief of the people doing (the recall), but it is their right," Pinkham said.

Waples agreed with Washburn about the level of discourse, and said he's confused on the main issue surrounding the closing down of the theatre project. If parking is the main issue, he said, that's not logical. Therefore, there must be something else, because it's not clear why the trustees voted against the project.

It would be helpful to the citizens to know the board's reasoning, he added.

Waples said he is concerned about the town making a gift of land, and if the money isn't raised to support the project, there is a legitimate question.

The public has been a little bit in the dark about why the vote came about as it did, he said.

In fact, Pinkham said the board only talked about the issue of the transfer of parking spaces to the EPIC project and not the entire project the night of the vote.

In prior meetings, they discussed community concerns and heard from many businesses, and architect Roger Thorp.

Pinkham said Thorp presented a single-tier parking garage. Town attorney Greg White said the parking garage was not part of the agreement they were voting on, Pinkham said, and trustee Ron Norris asked Stan Black of EPIC whether parking would be a part of the deal. Pinkham reported that Black said no.

Waples said it's hard to separate the issue of land from the viability of the rest of the project. Certain businesses or owners felt they had entitlement to parking the rest of us don't have, he said. Waples questioned the cost-benefit of the tradeoff of the land involved. He had the impression from published reports that the vote hinged on the parking, and said that's "unfortunate, if that's the case." Other issues need to be explored, he added.

Pinkham said there is a need for additional parking. The taking might be a part of that, and business owners expressed concern, he said.

Waples said there should be a balanced concern for what the public thinks is best for downtown. He is in favor of a theatre downtown, he said. What's best for the whole community is what interests him, he said.

Blackhurst said a citizen thanked him this week for not giving away taxpayer money to a private group.

The mayor pro tem commented that the whole approval process is upside down, and that the trustees should be the last people in line to view plans. He said the EPIC project had not been before the planning commission yet.

Waples again raised the concern about the funding. If the money is not raised, what happens? It was not in the papers, he said; all he read about was parking.

Blackhurst said the value of the area is around half-a-million dollars, with an enhanced Riverwalk area. Waples asked how this effort differed from the Elkhorn Project, Inc. (the proposed year-round ski adventure park at the Elkhorn Lodge, for which the town board voted in favor). Blackhurst replied it was a totally different issue — the Elkhorn Project, Inc. was an application to the Regional Tourism Authority.

It still involved the town giving something away, a resident commented. Not necessarily, Blackhurst said. There was an easement with water rights involved, and the Elkhorn Project would've paid for the water rights.

Town administrator Frank Lancaster clarified some issues surrounding the EPIC project. There was a property option agreement to buy the property later, he said. The sale was contingent on EPIC being able to raise all the money they needed to build the theatre.

"The sale would not have taken place unless they raised the money," Lancaster emphasized.

The option purchase was for $1. There was never a risk of the town selling the land, and then the theatre not going through, he added.

Pinkham agreed with Blackhurst's assessment of the approval process being "bass-ackwards." The town board was not given the opportunity to consider the entire project, but focused on one issue, parking. If you polled individual board members, he said, they are "very supportive" of a theatre. But that wasn't the issue, he added, giving the wrong impression to the public about the board not wanting the theatre.

That leads to the recall effort. A group of three individuals, upset with the board's decision the other night, requested a recall petition from the town clerk, Jackie Williamson. The petition was not in conformance with state statutes, so Williams denied it, returning it for corrections.